Case at a Glance
Parents of young people who died after COVID-19 vaccination, and others alleging serious injury, asked the Supreme Court for an independent medical board, better adverse-event protocols and compensation. The Court made clear it was not reviewing vaccine efficacy or the approval process. But it held that Article 21 includes the right to health and that the State owes a positive obligation to those harmed in a State-led health programme. It directed the Union, through the Health Ministry, to frame and publish a no-fault compensation framework for serious adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination, while declining to set up a separate court-appointed expert body.
The lead writ petition under Article 32 was filed in 2021 by parents of young persons who died after receiving COVID-19 vaccines. They sought an independent expert medical board to examine the deaths, protocols on adverse events following immunisation (AEFI), and compensation. The connected matters involved alleged deaths or serious injuries after Covishield or other doses, including conditions such as CVST, MIS-C, thrombocytopenia, intracranial bleeding, encephalitis and paralysis.
The Kerala High Court, hearing similar petitions, had on 1 September 2022 passed an interim order in Sayeeda K.A. directing the Health Ministry and the NDMA to frame a policy on identifying AEFI and on compensation. The Union challenged that order in the Supreme Court, and those proceedings along with transfer petitions were tagged with the lead case. The petitioners argued lack of transparency and informed consent and effective compulsion; the Union argued that approval and AEFI processes were lawful and expert-driven, that serious events were extremely rare, and that civil remedies remained available against manufacturers.
The Key Question Before the Court
Does the absence of a uniform policy on compensation for death or serious injury after COVID-19 vaccination violate Article 21, and if so, can the Court direct the Union to frame one?
From Right to Health to a No-Fault Framework
Justice Vikram Nath, writing for the Bench, clarified that the Court was not re-examining vaccine efficacy or regulatory approvals and relied on Jacob Puliyel v. Union of India, (2022) 05 SC CK 0006 (2022) for the adequacy of the approval process and AEFI surveillance. Building on Parmanand Katara v. Union of India, (1995) 01 SC CK 0074 (1995) 3 SCC 248, State of Punjab v. Mohinder Singh Chawla (1997) 2 SCC 83 and State of Punjab v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga, (1998) 02 SC CK 0106 (1998) 4 SCC 117, the Court held that Article 21 includes the right to health and that the State carries a positive obligation towards persons harmed in a health intervention it led.
The Court reasoned that fault-based civil or consumer remedies are ill-suited as the only route in a mass immunisation programme: proving negligence would be burdensome and could produce inconsistent results, raising Article 14 concerns. It drew on the no-fault principle already found in Indian law, such as Section 164 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and on vaccine injury schemes in countries such as Australia, the UK and Japan and the COVAX scheme. At the same time, it found the National and State AEFI Committees adequate and declined to create a new court-appointed expert body.
What the Court Actually Held
- Article 21 includes the right to health, and the State has a positive obligation towards those who suffer serious harm in a State-led immunisation programme.
- The Union, through the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, must expeditiously frame and place in the public domain a no-fault compensation framework for serious adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination.
- Existing AEFI surveillance will continue and relevant data is to be published periodically; no separate court-appointed expert body is considered necessary.
- The framework is not an admission of liability or fault by the Union or any authority, and other legal remedies remain open. The writ petition and connected matters were disposed of.
Why This Judgment Matters
- Families alleging COVID-19 vaccine harm now have a Supreme Court direction for a dedicated, no-fault compensation route instead of costly negligence litigation.
- It extends the no-fault idea familiar from motor accident law into public health, recognising that mass programmes can cause rare but serious harm.
- It balances public confidence in vaccination, by not questioning efficacy, with fairness to the small number who are seriously harmed.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Affected Families
- Keep medical records, AEFI reports and vaccination certificates; they will matter once the framework is notified.
- The Court’s direction does not bar other remedies, such as civil or consumer claims, if you choose to pursue them.
- Watch for the Health Ministry’s notification of the compensation framework.
For Counsel
- Cite Rachana Gangu v. Union of India, (2026) 03 SC CK 1400 (2026 INSC 218) for the State’s positive obligation under Article 21 in public health programmes.
- Note the Court’s express caveat that the framework is not an admission of liability or fault.
- Pending High Court petitions seeking similar relief may now be guided by this direction.
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court did not question COVID-19 vaccine safety or approvals.
- It directed a no-fault compensation framework for serious adverse events after vaccination.
- AEFI monitoring continues, with periodic publication of data.
- Other legal remedies remain available; the framework is not an admission of fault.
Frequently Asked Questions
Has the Supreme Court said COVID-19 vaccines were unsafe?
No. The Court expressly said it was not reviewing vaccine efficacy or the regulatory approval process, and relied on Jacob Puliyel for the adequacy of those processes.
What does ‘no-fault compensation’ mean?
It means compensation can be paid without the claimant having to prove negligence by anyone, similar to Section 164 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Court directed the Union to frame such a framework for serious adverse events after COVID-19 vaccination.
Can families still sue vaccine manufacturers?
The Court said nothing in its directions bars other remedies available in law.
Conclusion
The judgment carefully separates two questions that public debate often mixes up: whether vaccines were properly approved, and whether those rare people who are seriously harmed should be left to fend for themselves. On the first, the Court did not interfere. On the second, it held that the Constitution expects the State to step in.
Practical takeaway: Families of persons who died or were seriously injured after COVID-19 vaccination should preserve their records and track the Health Ministry’s no-fault compensation framework directed in Rachana Gangu v. Union of India (2026 INSC 218).
Read the full judgment on CourtKutchehry: View judgment →
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com